Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Left Premotor/Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Does Not Have Analgesic Effect on Central Poststroke Pain

Management of Central Post-Stroke Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Central post stroke pain (CPSP) is a neuropathic pain condition prevalent in 8% to 35% of stroke patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide insight in the effectiveness of available pharmacological, physical, psychological, and neuromodulation intervention in reducing pain in CPSP patients (PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022371835). Secondary outcomes included mood, sleep, global impression of change, and physical responses. Data extraction included participant demographics, stroke aetiology, pain characteristics, pain reduction scores, and secondary outcome metrics. Forty two original studies were included with a total of 1451 participants. No studies providing psychological therapy to CPSP patients were identified. Twelve studies met requirements for a random-effects meta-analyses that found: pharmacological therapy to have a small effect on mean pain score (SMD = -0.36, 96.0% Confidence Interval [-0.68, -0.03], physical interventions did not show a significant effect (SMD = -0.55, [-1.28, 0.18]), and neuromodulation treatments had a moderate effect (SMD -0.64, [-1.08, -0.19]). Fourteen studies were included in proportional meta-analysis with pharmacological studies having a moderate effect (58.3% mean pain reduction, [-36.51, -80.15]), and neuromodulation studies a small effect (31.1% mean pain reduction, [-43.45, -18.76]). Sixteen studies were included in the narrative review, findings from which largely supported meta-analyses results. Duloxetine, Amitriptyline and repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) had the most robust evidence for their effectiveness in alleviating CPSP induced pain. Further multi-centre placebo-controlled research is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of physical therapies, such as acupuncture and virtual reality, and invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation treatments. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a top-down and bottom-up overview of evidence for the effectiveness of different pharmacological, physical, and neuromodulation treatments of CPSP. This review could provide clinicians with a comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness and tolerability of different treatment types.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in central post-stroke pain: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Background

The rehabilitation of central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is a complex clinical challenge, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been widely applied in the research of neurofunctional recovery following stroke. However, there is currently no reliable evidence-based medicine supporting the efficacy of rTMS in central post-stroke pain. This review aims to evaluate the effects of rTMS on central post-stroke pain.

Methods

Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted searches on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wan Fang Data Knowledge Service Platform. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of rTMS in treating central post-stroke pain, and conducted screening based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Characteristics of the included RCTs were extracted. The heterogeneity of the trials was assessed using the I2 statistic. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 17 software. Bias risk and methodological quality were evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and the Pedro scale.

Results

A total of six randomized controlled trials involving 288 patients met our inclusion criteria. In our analysis, rTMS was more effective in treating patients with CPSP compared to the placebo group (SMD=-1.15, 95% CI: -1.69, -0.61, P < 0.001). Furthermore, results from subgroup analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in the improvement of pain for durations exceeding 6 months when comparing rTMS to conventional treatment (SMD=-0.80, 95% CI: -1.63, 0.03, P = 0.059).

Conclusion

TMS can alleviate pain in CPSP patients and improve their motor function, but its effects on depression, anxiety, and MEP-latency are not significant.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, CRD42024497530.

Non-invasive brain stimulation improves pain in patients with central post-stroke pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) significantly interferes with the quality of life and psychological well-being of stroke patients. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has attracted significant attention as an emerging method for treating patients with CPSP.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy of noninvasive brain stimulation on pain, and psychological status of patients with central post-stroke pain using meta-analysis.

METHODS

A computerized search of multiple databases was performed for identification of randomized controlled trials involving NIBS-led treatment of CPSP patients. Two researchers worked independently on literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. Research was conducted from inception of the database until October 2023. RevMan 5.0 and Stata 15.0 software were used to conduct statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen papers with 807 patients were finally included. The results showed that NIBS reduced patients' pain intensity [SMD = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.54, -0.24), p < 0.01] and was more effective in short-term CPSP patients. However, the included studies did not show a significant impact on psychological status, particularly depression. Subgroup analysis suggested that the M1 stimulation point was more effective than other stimulation points [SMD = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.65, -0.25), p < 0.001]. Other stimulation modalities also demonstrated favorable outcomes when compared to rTMS [SMD = -0.67, 95% CI (-1.09, -0.25), p < 0.01].

CONCLUSION

NIBS has a positive impact on pain relief in patients with CPSP, but does not enhance patients' psychological well-being in terms of anxiety or depression. Furthermore, large-sample, high-quality, and multi-center RCTs are needed to explore the benefits of different stimulation durations and parameters in patients with CPSP. The current study has been registered with Prospero under the registration number CRD42023468419.

High frequency neuronavigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in post-stroke shoulder pain: A double-blinded, randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the effect of 5Hz neuronavigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to the affected primary motor cortex (M1) on pain, the effect of pain on activities of daily living, disability, mood, neurophysiological parameters and passive shoulder joint range of motion in patients with post-stroke shoulder pain.

DESIGN

Twenty two patients were randomized into an experimental group (rTMS, n=7) who received daily rTMS 5Hz 1000 pulses, five times/week for three weeks (15 sessions) to the affected M1 and a control group (n=11) who received sham stimulation. Outcome measures were Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (Quick DASH), Hospital Depression Anxiety Scale (HADS), joint range of motion (ROM) measurements, neurophysiological parameters. Selected outcome measures were performed before treatment (T0), after the 5th session (T1) of rTMS treatment, after the 10th session (T2), after the 15th session (T3), and four weeks after the end of the treatment (T4). In the analysis of the outcomes, within-group comparisons were performed by using the Wilcoxon or Friedman test and between-group comparisons were performed by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between and within groups in terms of change- and followup scores in the NRS measurements (p>0.05). BPI scale was found to be lower in rTMS group at T0 and T3 (p= 0.010). Quick-DASH scores at T4 were found to be significantly lower in rTMS group (p= 0.032). However, no difference was found within each group over time (p>0.05) and there was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of change scores (T3-T0 and T4-T0) (p>0.05) for BPI and Quick-DASH. In rTMS group, there was a statistically significant difference in shoulder external rotation at T3 compared to the baseline (T0) (p=0.039). However, the magnitude of external rotation change (T3-T0) with the treatment was comparable in the groups. No statistically significant change occurred in both treatment groups in other range of motion measurements.

CONCLUSION

High frequency neuronavigated rTMS to the affected M1 did not show any significant beneficial effect on pain, activities of daily living, disability, anxiety and depression, neurophysiological measurements and passive ROM over sham stimulation.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for central post-stroke pain: systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Although rare, central post-stroke pain remains one of the most refractory forms of neuropathic pain. It has been reported that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) may be effective in these cases of pain.

Aim

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of rTMS in patients with central post-stroke pain (CPSP).

Methods

We included randomized controlled trials or Controlled Trials published until October 3rd, 2022, which studied the effect of rTMS compared to placebo in CPSP. We included studies of adult patients (>18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of stroke, in which the intervention consisted of the application of rTMS to treat CSP.

Results

Nine studies were included in the qualitative analysis; 6 studies (4 RCT and 2 non-RCT), with 180 participants, were included in the quantitative analysis. A significant reduction in CPSP was found in favor of rTMS compared with sham, with a large effect size (SMD: -1.45; 95% CI: -1.87; -1.03; p < 0.001; I2: 58%).

Conclusion

The findings of the present systematic review with meta-analysis suggest that there is low quality evidence for the effectiveness of rTMS in reducing CPSP.

Systematic review registration

Identifier (CRD42022365655).

Noninvasive transcranial brain stimulation in central post-stroke pain: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the efficacy of noninvasive brain stimulation (NBS) in the treatment of central post-stroke pain (CPSP).

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials testing the efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation versus placebo or other usual therapy in patients with CPSP. Articles in English, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, and French were included. A bibliographic search was independently conducted on June 1, 2022, by two authors, using the databases MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. The risk of bias was assessed using the second version of the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB 2) tool and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated through Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 2,674 records were identified after removing duplicates, of which 5 eligible studies were included, involving a total of 119 patients. All five studies evaluated repetitive TMS, four of which stimulated the primary motor cortex (M1) and one stimulated the premotor/dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Only the former one reported a significant pain reduction in the short term, while the latter one was interrupted due to a consistent lack of analgesic effect.

CONCLUSION

NBS in the M1 area seems to be effective in reducing short-term pain; however, more high-quality homogeneous studies, with long-term follow-up, are required to determine the efficacy of this treatment in CSPS.

Brain stimulation targets for chronic pain: Insights from meta-analysis, functional connectivity and literature review

Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have demonstrated their potential for chronic pain management, yet their efficacy exhibits variability across studies. Refining stimulation targets and exploring additional targets offer a possible solution to this challenge. This study aimed to identify potential brain surface targets for NIBS in treating chronic pain disorders by integrating literature review, neuroimaging meta-analysis, and functional connectivity analysis on 90 chronic low back pain patients. Our results showed that the primary motor cortex (M1) (C3/C4, 10-20 EEG system) and prefrontal cortex (F3/F4/Fz) were the most used brain stimulation targets for chronic pain treatment according to the literature review. The bilateral precentral gyrus (M1), supplementary motor area, Rolandic operculum, and temporoparietal junction, were all identified as common potential NIBS targets through both a meta-analysis sourced from Neurosynth and functional connectivity analysis. This study presents a comprehensive summary of the current literature and refines the existing NIBS targets through a combination of imaging meta-analysis and functional connectivity analysis for chronic pain conditions. The derived coordinates (with integration of the international electroencephalography (EEG) 10/20 electrode placement system) within the above brain regions may further facilitate the localization of these targets for NIBS application. Our findings may have the potential to expand NIBS target selection beyond current clinical trials and improve chronic pain treatment.

Central neuropathic pain

Central neuropathic pain arises from a lesion or disease of the central somatosensory nervous system such as brain injury, spinal cord injury, stroke, multiple sclerosis or related neuroinflammatory conditions. The incidence of central neuropathic pain differs based on its underlying cause. Individuals with spinal cord injury are at the highest risk; however, central post-stroke pain is the most prevalent form of central neuropathic pain worldwide. The mechanisms that underlie central neuropathic pain are not fully understood, but the pathophysiology likely involves intricate interactions and maladaptive plasticity within spinal circuits and brain circuits associated with nociception and antinociception coupled with neuronal hyperexcitability. Modulation of neuronal activity, neuron-glia and neuro-immune interactions and targeting pain-related alterations in brain connectivity, represent potential therapeutic approaches. Current evidence-based pharmacological treatments include antidepressants and gabapentinoids as first-line options. Non-pharmacological pain management options include self-management strategies, exercise and neuromodulation. A comprehensive pain history and clinical examination form the foundation of central neuropathic pain classification, identification of potential risk factors and stratification of patients for clinical trials. Advanced neurophysiological and neuroimaging techniques hold promise to improve the understanding of mechanisms that underlie central neuropathic pain and as predictive biomarkers of treatment outcome.

Beyond trial-and-error: Individualizing therapeutic transcranial neuromodulation for chronic pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied to the motor cortex provides supplementary relief for some individuals with chronic pain who are refractory to pharmacological treatment. As rTMS slowly enters treatment guidelines for pain relief, its starts to be confronted with challenges long known to pharmacological approaches: efficacy at the group-level does not grant pain relief for a particular patient. In this review, we present and discuss a series of ongoing attempts to overcome this therapeutic challenge in a personalized medicine framework.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Relevant scientific publications published in main databases such as PubMed and EMBASE from inception until March 2023 were systematically assessed, as well as a wide number of studies dedicated to the exploration of the mechanistic grounds of rTMS analgesic effects in humans, primates and rodents.

RESULTS

The main strategies reported to personalize cortical neuromodulation are: (i) the use of rTMS to predict individual response to implanted motor cortex stimulation; (ii) modifications of motor cortex stimulation patterns; (iii) stimulation of extra-motor targets; (iv) assessment of individual cortical networks and rhythms to personalize treatment; (v) deep sensory phenotyping; (vi) personalization of location, precision and intensity of motor rTMS. All approaches except (i) have so far low or moderate levels of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although current evidence for most strategies under study remains at best moderate, the multiple mechanisms set up by cortical stimulation are an advantage over single-target 'clean' drugs, as they can influence multiple pathophysiologic paths and offer multiple possibilities of individualization.

SIGNIFICANCE

Non-invasive neuromodulation is on the verge of personalised medicine. Strategies ranging from integration of detailed clinical phenotyping into treatment design to advanced patient neurophysiological characterisation are being actively explored and creating a framework for actual individualisation of care.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in central post-stroke pain: current status and future perspective

Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is an incapacitating disorder that impacts a substantial proportion of stroke survivors and can diminish their quality of life. Conventional therapies for CPSP, including tricyclic antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and opioids, are frequently ineffective, necessitating the investigation of alternative therapeutic strategies. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is now recognized as a promising noninvasive pain management method for CPSP. rTMS modulates neural activity through the administration of magnetic pulses to specific cortical regions. Trials analyzing the effects of rTMS on CPSP have generated various outcomes, but the evidence suggests possible analgesic benefits. In CPSP and other neuropathic pain conditions, high-frequency rTMS targeting the primary motor cortex (M1) with figure-eight coils has demonstrated significant pain alleviation. Due to its associaton with analgesic benefits, M1 is the most frequently targeted area. The duration and frequency of rTMS sessions, as well as the stimulation intensity, have been studied in an effort to optimize treatment outcomes. The short-term pain relief effects of rTMS have been observed, but the long-term effects (> 3 months) require further investigation. Aspects such as stimulation frequency, location, and treatment period can influence the efficacy of rTMS and ought to be considered while planning the procedure. Standardized guidelines for using rTMS in CPSP would optimize therapy protocols and improve patient outcomes. This review article provides an up-to-date overview of the incidence, clinical characteristics, outcome of rTMS in CPSP patients, and future perspective in the field.

Non-invasive cortical stimulation for drug-resistant pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neuromodulation techniques are being increasingly used to alleviate pain and enhance quality of life. Non-invasive cortical stimulation was originally intended to predict the efficacy of invasive (neurosurgical) techniques, but has now gained a place as an analgesic procedure in its own right.

RECENT FINDINGS

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): Evidence from 14 randomised, placebo-controlled trials (~750 patients) supports a significant analgesic effect of high-frequency motor cortex rTMS in neuropathic pain. Dorsolateral frontal stimulation has not proven efficacious so far. The posterior operculo-insular cortex is an attractive target but evidence remains insufficient. Short-term efficacy can be achieved with NNT (numbers needed to treat) ~2-3, but long-lasting efficacy remains a challenge.Like rTMS, transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) induces activity changes in distributed brain networks and can influence various aspects of pain. Lower cost relative to rTMS, few safety issues and availability of home-based protocols are practical advantages. The limited quality of many published reports lowers the level of evidence, which will remain uncertain until more prospective controlled studies are available.

SUMMARY

Both rTMS and tDCS act preferentially upon abnormal hyperexcitable states of pain, rather than acute or experimental pain. For both techniques, M1 appears to be the best target for chronic pain relief, and repeated sessions over relatively long periods of time may be required to obtain clinically significant benefits. Patients responsive to tDCS may differ from those improved by rTMS.

A randomised sham-controlled study evaluating rTMS analgesic efficacy for postherpetic neuralgia

Context

Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a refractory neuropathic pain condition in which new treatment options are being developed. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) may have the potential to reduce pain sensations in patients with postherpetic neuralgia.

Objectives

This study investigated the efficacy on postherpetic neuralgia by stimulating two potential targets, the motor cortex (M1) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).

Methods

This is a double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled study. Potential participants were recruited from Hangzhou First People's Hospital. Patients were randomly assigned to either the M1, DLPFC or Sham group. Patients received ten daily sessions of 10-Hz rTMS in 2 consecutive weeks. The primary outcome measure was visual analogue scale (VAS) assessed at baseline, first week of treatment (week 1), post-treatment (week 2), 1-week (week 4), 1-month (week 6) and 3-month (week 14) follow-up.

Results

Of sixty patients enrolled, 51 received treatment and completed all outcome assessments. M1 stimulation resulted in a larger analgesia during and after treatment compared to the Sham (week 2 - week 14, p < 0.005), as well as to the DLPFC stimulation (week 1 - week 14, p < 0.05). In addition to pain, sleep disturbance was significantly improved and relieved by targeting either the M1 or the DLPFC (M1: week 4 - week 14, p < 0.01; DLPFC: week 4 - week 14, p < 0.01). Moreover, pain sensations following M1 stimulation uniquely predicted improvement in sleep quality.

Conclusion

M1 rTMS is superior to DLPFC stimulation in treating PHN with excellent pain response and long-term analgesia. Meanwhile, M1 and DLPFC stimulation were equally effective in improving sleep quality in PHN.

Clinical trial registration

https://www.chictr.org.cn/, identifier ChiCTR2100051963.

Application of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Neuropathic Pain: A Narrative Review

Neuropathic pain, affecting 6.9-10% of the general population, has a negative impact on patients' quality of life and potentially leads to functional impairment and disability. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)-a safe, indirect and non-invasive technique-has been increasingly applied for treating neuropathic pain. The mechanism underlying rTMS is not yet well understood, and the analgesic effects of rTMS have been inconsistent with respect to different settings/parameters, causing insufficient evidence to determine its efficacy in patients with neuropathic pain. This narrative review aimed to provide an up-to-date overview of rTMS for treating neuropathic pain as well as to summarize the treatment protocols and related adverse effects from existing clinical trials. Current evidence supports the use of 10 Hz HF-rTMS of the primary motor cortex to reduce neuropathic pain, especially in patients with spinal cord injury, diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia. However, the lack of standardized protocols impedes the universal use of rTMS for neuropathic pain. rTMS was hypothesized to achieve analgesic effects by upregulating the pain threshold, inhibiting pain impulse, modulating the brain cortex, altering imbalanced functional connectivity, regulating neurotrophin and increasing endogenous opioid and anti-inflammatory cytokines. Further studies are warranted to explore the differences in the parameters/settings of rTMS for treating neuropathic pain due to different disease types.

The mechanism and effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-stroke pain

Post-stroke pain (PSP) is a common complication after stroke and affects patients' quality of life. Currently, drug therapy and non-invasive brain stimulation are common treatments for PSP. Given the poor efficacy of drug therapy and various side effects, non-invasive brain stimulation, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), has been accepted by many patients and attracted the attention of many researchers because of its non-invasive and painless nature. This article reviews the therapeutic effect of rTMS on PSP and discusses the possible mechanisms. In general, rTMS has a good therapeutic effect on PSP. Possible mechanisms of its analgesia include altering cortical excitability and synaptic plasticity, modulating the release of related neurotransmitters, and affecting the structural and functional connectivity of brain regions involved in pain processing and modulation. At present, studies on the mechanism of rTMS in the treatment of PSP are lacking, so we hope this review can provide a theoretical basis for future mechanism studies.

Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on sequelae in patients with chronic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide, with a large proportion of survivors suffering from motor dysfunction and neuropsychiatric sequelae. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a promising stroke rehabilitation intervention and is effective in improving neurological system function in stroke patients. In the current systemic review and meta-analysis, an overview of the most recent studies regarding the effectiveness of rTMS's potential to help chronic stroke patients recover from sequelae was provided.

Methods

Relevant randomized controlled trials were retrieved from three online databases (Web of Science, Medline, and Embase). A total of 25 RCTs (N = 535 participants) were included. A meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effects model or a random-effects model, and effect sizes were reported as weighted mean differences or standardized mean differences.

Results

Administration of rTMS significantly improved upper limb function, hand function, and muscle tone in stroke patients throughout the chronic phase [≥6 months], but not lower limb mobility and strength. In terms of cognitive function, rTMS has a considerable positive impact on patients' cognitive performance. rTMS also alleviated apathy in stroke patients more than post-stroke depressive symptoms regarding mental functioning. Balance and walking function, as well as functional activities of daily living, of patients were dramatically improved by rTMS. However, the current conclusions should be taken carefully due to the small sample size of the meta-analysis.

Conclusions

This is the first meta-analysis of rTMS treatment in patients with chronic stroke to inform the selection of the optimal treatment strategy for patients with chronic stroke, which demonstrated that rTMS treatment has the potential to improve the effects of sequelae by improving upper limb function, hand function, and muscle tone.

Systematic review registration

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-7-0095/, identifier: INPLASY202270095.

Overcoming clinical challenges of refractory neuropathic pain

INTRODUCTION

: Refractory neuropathic pain (ReNP), and its definition, is widely disputed amongst clinicians due in part to unclear categorical diagnosing guidelines, overall time duration of neuropathic pain, and the exhaustiveness of treatment options. Usually ReNP is defined as chronic, intractable, and unresponsive neuropathic pain that have otherwise been untreatable.

AREAS COVERED

: In this narrative review, we discuss and summarize the effectiveness of prospective ReNP research conducted over the past 10 years. This research looks at pharmacological and interventional therapies in clinical trial settings. The pharmacological therapies discussed include the use of adjuvant treatments to improve the safety and efficacy of conventional approaches. Different modalities of administration, such as injection therapy and intrathecal drug delivery systems, provide targeted drug delivery. Interventional therapies such as neuromodulation, pulse radiofrequency, and nerve lesioning are more invasive, however, they are increasingly utilized in the field, as reflected in ongoing clinical trials.

EXPERT OPINION

: Based on the current data from RCTs and systematic reviews, it is clear that single drug therapy cannot be effective and has significant limitations. Transitioning to interventional modalities that showed more promising results sooner rather than later may be even more cost-efficient than attempting different conservative treatments with a high failure rate.

Research Hotspots and Effectiveness of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Pain: A Bibliometric Analysis

Transcranial magnetic stimulation, as a relatively new type of treatment, is a safe and non-invasive method for pain therapy. Here, we used CiteSpace software to visually analyze 440 studies concerning transcranial magnetic stimulation in pain research from 2010 to 2021, indexed by Web of Science, to clarify the research hotspots in different periods and characterize the process of discovery in this field. The United States ranked first in this field. Lefaucheur JP, Fregni F, and Andrade ACD made great contributions to this field of study. The most prolific institution was University of São Paulo. The four main hot keywords were neuropathic pain, motor cortex, connectivity, and non-invasive brain stimulation. There were three main points that were generally accepted: (1) definite analgesic effect of high-frequency rTMS of M1 contralateral to pain side in neuropathic pain; (2) there are inconclusive recommendations regarding rTMS of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain; (3) there is low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex may have short-term effects on chronic pain. This bibliometric analysis indicated that prospective, multi-center, large-sample, randomized controlled trials are still needed to further verify the effectiveness of various transcranial magnetic stimulation parameters in pain research.

The Management of Poststroke Thalamic Pain: Update in Clinical Practice

Poststroke thalamic pain (PS-TP), a type of central poststroke pain, has been challenged to improve the rehabilitation outcomes and quality of life after a stroke. It has been shown in 2.7-25% of stroke survivors; however, the treatment of PS-TP remains difficult, and in majority of them it often failed to manage the pain and hypersensitivity effectively, despite the different pharmacotherapies as well as invasive interventions. Central imbalance, central disinhibition, central sensitization, other thalamic adaptative changes, and local inflammatory responses have been considered as its possible pathogenesis. Allodynia and hyperalgesia, as well as the chronic sensitization of pain, are mainly targeted in the management of PS-TP. Commonly recommended first- and second-lines of pharmacological therapies, including traditional medications, e.g., antidepressants, anticonvulsants, opioid analgesics, and lamotrigine, were more effective than others. Nonpharmacological interventions, such as transcranial magnetic or direct current brain stimulations, vestibular caloric stimulation, epidural motor cortex stimulation, and deep brain stimulation, were effective in some cases/small-sized studies and can be recommended in the management of therapy-resistant PS-TP. Interestingly, the stimulation to other areas, e.g., the motor cortex, periventricular/periaqueductal gray matter, and thalamus/internal capsule, showed more effect than the stimulation to the thalamus alone. Further studies on brain or spinal stimulation are required for evidence.

Brazilian Academy of Neurology practice guidelines for stroke rehabilitation: part I

The Guidelines for Stroke Rehabilitation are the result of a joint effort by the Scientific Department of Neurological Rehabilitation of the Brazilian Academy of Neurology aiming to guide professionals involved in the rehabilitation process to reduce functional disability and increase individual autonomy. Members of the group participated in web discussion forums with predefined themes, followed by videoconference meetings in which issues were discussed, leading to a consensus. These guidelines, divided into two parts, focus on the implications of recent clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses in stroke rehabilitation literature. The main objective was to guide physicians, physiotherapists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, nurses, nutritionists, and other professionals involved in post-stroke care. Recommendations and levels of evidence were adapted according to the currently available literature. Part I discusses topics on rehabilitation in the acute phase, as well as prevention and management of frequent conditions and comorbidities after stroke.

Analgesic Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation at Different Stimulus Parameters for Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to investigate the analgesic effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the primary motor cortex (M1-rTMS) using different stimulation parameters to explore the optimal stimulus condition for treating neuropathic pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized, blinded, crossover exploratory study. Four single sessions of M1-rTMS at different parameters were administered in random order. The tested stimulation conditions were as follows: 5-Hz with 500 pulses per session, 10-Hz with 500 pulses per session, 10-Hz with 2000 pulses per session, and sham stimulation. Analgesic effects were assessed by determining the visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity score and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 (SF-MPQ2) score immediately before and immediately after intervention.

RESULTS

We enrolled 22 adults (age: 59.8 ± 12.1 years) with intractable neuropathic pain. Linear-effects models showed significant effects of the stimulation condition on changes in VAS pain intensity (p = 0.03) and SF-MPQ2 (p = 0.01). Tukey multiple comparison tests revealed that 10-Hz rTMS with 2000 pulses provided better pain relief than sham stimulation, with greater decreases in VAS pain intensity (p = 0.03) and SF-MPQ2 (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that high-dose stimulation (specifically, 10-Hz rTMS at 2000 pulses) is more effective than lower-dose stimulation for treating neuropathic pain.

A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Targeting M1 and S2 in Central Poststroke Pain: A Pilot Trial

OBJECTIVES

Central poststroke pain (CPSP), a neuropathic pain condition, is difficult to treat. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeted to the primary motor cortex (M1) can alleviate the condition, but not all patients respond. We aimed to assess a promising alternative rTMS target, the secondary somatosensory cortex (S2), for CPSP treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled three-arm crossover trial assessed navigated rTMS (nrTMS) targeted to M1 and S2 (10 sessions, 5050 pulses per session at 10 Hz). Participants were evaluated for pain, depression, anxiety, health-related quality of life, upper limb function, and three plasticity-related gene polymorphisms including Dopamine D2 Receptor (DRD2). We monitored pain intensity and interference before and during stimulations and at one month. A conditioned pain modulation test was performed using the cold pressor test. This assessed the efficacy of the descending inhibitory system, which may transmit TMS effects in pain control.

RESULTS

We prescreened 73 patients, screened 29, and included 21, of whom 17 completed the trial. NrTMS targeted to S2 resulted in long-term (from baseline to one-month follow-up) pain intensity reduction of ≥30% in 18% (3/17) of participants. All stimulations showed a short-term effect on pain (17-20% pain relief), with no difference between M1, S2, or sham stimulations, indicating a strong placebo effect. Only nrTMS targeted to S2 resulted in a significant long-term pain intensity reduction (15% pain relief). The cold pressor test reduced CPSP pain intensity significantly (p = 0.001), indicating functioning descending inhibitory controls. The homozygous DRD2 T/T genotype is associated with the M1 stimulation response.

CONCLUSIONS

S2 is a promising nrTMS target in the treatment of CPSP. The DRD2 T/T genotype might be a biomarker for M1 nrTMS response, but this needs confirmation from a larger study.

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation for Central Neuropathic Pain

The research and clinical application of the noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) technique in the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) are increasing. In this review article, we outline the effectiveness and limitations of the NIBS approach in treating common central neuropathic pain (CNP). This article summarizes the research progress of NIBS in the treatment of different CNPs and describes the effects and mechanisms of these methods on different CNPs. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) analgesic research has been relatively mature and applied to a variety of CNP treatments. But the optimal stimulation targets, stimulation intensity, and stimulation time of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for each type of CNP are still difficult to identify. The analgesic mechanism of rTMS is similar to that of tDCS, both of which change cortical excitability and synaptic plasticity, regulate the release of related neurotransmitters and affect the structural and functional connections of brain regions associated with pain processing and regulation. Some deficiencies are found in current NIBS relevant studies, such as small sample size, difficulty to avoid placebo effect, and insufficient research on analgesia mechanism. Future research should gradually carry out large-scale, multicenter studies to test the stability and reliability of the analgesic effects of NIBS.

Dissecting central post-stroke pain: a controlled symptom-psychophysical characterization

Central post-stroke pain affects up to 12% of stroke survivors and is notoriously refractory to treatment. However, stroke patients often suffer from other types of pain of non-neuropathic nature (musculoskeletal, inflammatory, complex regional) and no head-to-head comparison of their respective clinical and somatosensory profiles has been performed so far. We compared 39 patients with definite central neuropathic post-stroke pain with two matched control groups: 32 patients with exclusively non-neuropathic pain developed after stroke and 31 stroke patients not complaining of pain. Patients underwent deep phenotyping via a comprehensive assessment including clinical exam, questionnaires and quantitative sensory testing to dissect central post-stroke pain from chronic pain in general and stroke. While central post-stroke pain was mostly located in the face and limbs, non-neuropathic pain was predominantly axial and located in neck, shoulders and knees (P < 0.05). Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory clusters burning (82.1%, n = 32, P < 0.001), tingling (66.7%, n = 26, P < 0.001) and evoked by cold (64.1%, n = 25, P < 0.001) occurred more frequently in central post-stroke pain. Hyperpathia, thermal and mechanical allodynia also occurred more commonly in this group (P < 0.001), which also presented higher levels of deafferentation (P < 0.012) with more asymmetric cold and warm detection thresholds compared with controls. In particular, cold hypoesthesia (considered when the threshold of the affected side was <41% of the contralateral threshold) odds ratio (OR) was 12 (95% CI: 3.8-41.6) for neuropathic pain. Additionally, cold detection threshold/warm detection threshold ratio correlated with the presence of neuropathic pain (ρ = -0.4, P < 0.001). Correlations were found between specific neuropathic pain symptom clusters and quantitative sensory testing: paroxysmal pain with cold (ρ = -0.4; P = 0.008) and heat pain thresholds (ρ = 0.5; P = 0.003), burning pain with mechanical detection (ρ = -0.4; P = 0.015) and mechanical pain thresholds (ρ = -0.4, P < 0.013), evoked pain with mechanical pain threshold (ρ = -0.3; P = 0.047). Logistic regression showed that the combination of cold hypoesthesia on quantitative sensory testing, the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, and the allodynia intensity on bedside examination explained 77% of the occurrence of neuropathic pain. These findings provide insights into the clinical-psychophysics relationships in central post-stroke pain and may assist more precise distinction of neuropathic from non-neuropathic post-stroke pain in clinical practice and in future trials.

Cortical stimulation for chronic pain: from anecdote to evidence

Epidural stimulation of the motor cortex (eMCS) was devised in the 1990's, and has now largely supplanted thalamic stimulation for neuropathic pain relief. Its mechanisms of action involve activation of multiple cortico-subcortical areas initiated in the thalamus, with involvement of endogenous opioids and descending inhibition toward the spinal cord. Evidence for clinical efficacy is now supported by at least seven RCTs; benefits may persist up to 10 years, and can be reasonably predicted by preoperative use of non-invasive repetitive magnetic stimulation (rTMS). rTMS first developed as a means of predicting the efficacy of epidural procedures, then as an analgesic method on its own right. Reasonable evidence from at least six well-conducted RCTs favors a significant analgesic effect of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex in neuropathic pain (NP), and less consistently in widespread/fibromyalgic pain. Stimulation of the dorsolateral frontal cortex (DLPFC) has not proven efficacious for pain, so far. The posterior operculo-insular cortex is a new and attractive target but evidence remains inconsistent. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is applied upon similar targets as rTMS and eMCS; it does not elicit action potentials but modulates the neuronal resting membrane state. tDCS presents practical advantages including low cost, few safety issues, and possibility of home-based protocols; however, the limited quality of most published reports entails a low level of evidence. Patients responsive to tDCS may differ from those improved by rTMS, and in both cases repeated sessions over a long time may be required to achieve clinically significant relief. Both invasive and non-invasive procedures exert their effects through multiple distributed brain networks influencing the sensory, affective and cognitive aspects of chronic pain. Their effects are mainly exerted upon abnormally sensitized pathways, rather than on acute physiological pain. Extending the duration of long-term benefits remains a challenge, for which different strategies are discussed in this review.

Physiotherapy interventions may relieve pain in individuals with central neuropathic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objectives:

To evaluate the effectiveness of any form of physiotherapy intervention for the management of central neuropathic pain (cNeP) due to any underlying cause.

Methods:

Multiple databases were searched from inception until August 2021. Randomised controlled trials evaluating physiotherapy interventions compared to a control condition on pain among people with cNeP were included. Methodological quality and the quality of evidence were assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool, respectively.

Results:

The searches yielded 2661 studies, of which 23 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analyses. Meta-analyses of trials examining non-invasive neurostimulation revealed significant reductions in pain severity due to spinal cord injury (SCI; standardised mean difference (SMD): −0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI]: −1.07, −0.11), p = 0.02) and phantom limb pain (weighted mean difference (WMD): −1.57 (95% CI: −2.85, −0.29), p = 0.02). The pooled analyses of trials utilising acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), and mirror therapy showed significant reductions in pain severity among individuals with stroke (WMD: −1.46 (95% CI: −1.97, −0.94), p < 0.001), multiple sclerosis (SMD: −0.32 (95% CI: −0.57, −0.06), p = 0.01), and phantom limb pain (SMD: −0.74 (95% CI: −1.36, −0.11), p = 0.02), respectively. Exercise was also found to significantly reduce pain among people with multiple sclerosis (SMD: −1.58 (95% CI: −2.85, −0.30), p = 0.02).

Conclusion:

Evidence supports the use of non-invasive neurostimulation for the treatment of pain secondary to SCI and phantom limb pain. Beneficial pain management outcomes were also identified for acupuncture in stroke, TENS in multiple sclerosis, and mirror therapy in phantom limb pain.

Efficacy and tolerability in patients with chronic facial pain of two consecutive treatment periods of rTMS applied over the facial motor cortex, using protocols differing in stimulation frequency, duration, and train pattern

OBJECTIVE

We conducted an open-label cross-over study assessing the global effect of two high-frequency protocols of electric-field navigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeted to functional facial motor cortex and comparing their efficacy and tolerability in patients with chronic facial pain. Outcome predictors were also assessed.

METHODS

We randomized twenty consecutive patients with chronic facial pain (post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain, n=14; persistent idiopathic facial pain, n=4; secondary trigeminal neuralgia, n=2) to receive two distinct 5-day rTMS interventions (10Hz, 2400 pulses and 20Hz, 3600 pulses) separated by six weeks. The target area was assessed by mapping of lower face representation. The primary endpoint was the change in weekly mean of pain intensity (numeric rating scale, NRS) between the baseline and therapy week (1^st week), and follow-up weeks (2^nd and 3^rd weeks) for each rTMS intervention. Response was defined using a combination scale including the patient's global impression of change and continuance with maintenance treatment.

RESULTS

Overall, pain intensity NRS decreased from 7.4 at baseline to 5.9 ten weeks later, after the second rTMS intervention (p=0.009). The repetition of the treatment had a significant effect (F=4.983, p=0.043) indicating that the NRS scores are lower during the second four weeks period. Eight (40%) patients were responders, 4 (20%) exhibited a modest effect, 4 (20%) displayed no effect, and 4 (20%) experienced worsening of pain. High disability and high pain intensity (>7) predicted a better outcome (p=0.043 and p=0.045). Female gender, shorter duration of pain and low Beck Anxiety Inventory scores showed a trend towards a better outcome (p=0.052, 0.060 and 0.055, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

High-frequency rTMS targeted to face M1 alleviates treatment resistant chronic facial pain. Repeated treatment improves the analgesic effect. A protocol with higher frequency (above 10Hz), longer session duration (more than 20 minutes) and higher number of pulses (above 2400 pulses/session) did not improve the outcome. The results support early consideration of rTMS.

Personalizing Dual-Target Cortical Stimulation with Bayesian Parameter Optimization Successfully Treats Central Post-Stroke Pain: A Case Report

Central pain disorders, such as central post-stroke pain, remain clinically challenging to treat, despite many decades of pharmacological advances and the evolution of neuromodulation. For treatment refractory cases, previous studies have highlighted some benefits of cortical stimulation. Recent advances in new targets for pain and the optimization of neuromodulation encouraged our group to develop a dual cortical target approach paired with Bayesian optimization to provide a personalized treatment. Here, we present a case report of a woman who developed left-sided facial pain after multiple thalamic strokes. All previous pharmacologic and interventional treatments failed to mitigate the pain, leaving her incapacitated due to pain and medication side effects. She subsequently underwent a single burr hole for placement of motor cortex (M1) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) paddles for stimulation with externalization. By using Bayesian optimization to find optimal stimulation parameters and stimulation sites, we were able to reduce pain from an 8.5/10 to a 0/10 during a 5-day inpatient stay, with pain staying at or below a 2/10 one-month post-procedure. We found optimal treatment to be simultaneous stimulation of M1 and dlPFC without any evidence of seizure induction. In addition, we found no worsening in cognitive performance during a working memory task with dlPFC stimulation. This personalized approach using Bayesian optimization may provide a new foundation for treating central pain and other functional disorders through systematic evaluation of stimulation parameters.

Difference in Analgesic Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation According to the Site of Pain

High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex for neuropathic pain has been shown to be effective, according to systematic reviews and therapeutic guidelines. However, our large, rigorous, investigator-initiated, registration-directed clinical trial failed to show a positive primary outcome, and its subgroup analysis suggested that the analgesic effect varied according to the site of pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in analgesic effects of rTMS for neuropathic pain between different pain sites by reviewing our previous clinical trials. We included three clinical trials in this mini meta-analysis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial at seven hospitals (N = 64), an investigator-initiated registration-directed clinical trial at three hospitals (N = 142), and an exploratory clinical trial examining different stimulation parameters (N = 22). The primary efficacy endpoint (change in pain scale) was extracted for each patient group with pain in the face, upper limb, or lower limb, and a meta-analysis of the efficacy of active rTMS against sham stimulation was performed. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for pain change using a random-effects model. The analgesic effect of rTMS for upper limb pain was favorable (SMD = -0.45, 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.13). In contrast, rTMS did not produce significant pain relief on lower limb pain (SMD = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.33 to 0.41) or face (SMD = -0.24, 95% CI: -1.59 to 1.12). In conclusion, these findings suggest that rTMS provides analgesic effects in patients with neuropathic pain in the upper limb, but not in the lower limb or face, under the conditions of previous clinical trials. Owing to the main limitation of small number of studies included, many aspects should be clarified by further research and high-quality studies in these patients.

Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on neuropathic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Neuropathic pain (NP) is a chronic pain condition caused by lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a neuroregulatory tool that uses pulsed magnetic fields to modulate the cerebral cortex. This review aimed to ascertain the therapeutic effect of rTMS on NP and potential factors regulating the therapeutic effect of rTMS. Database search included Web of Science, Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 2021. Eligible studies included randomized controlled studies of the analgesic effects of rTMS in patients with NP. Thirty-eight studies were included. Random effect analysis showed effect sizes of -0.66 (95 % CI, -0.87 to -0.46), indicating that real rTMS was better than sham condition in reducing pain (P < 0.001). This comprehensive review indicated that stimulation frequency, intervention site, and location of lesion were important factors affecting the therapeutic effect. The findings of this study may guide clinical decisions and future research.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain on the Non-Motor Cortex: An Evidence Mapping of Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVE

This study was aimed to summarize and analyze the quality of the available evidence in systematic reviews (SRs) of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on the non-motor cortex (non-M1) for neuropathic pain (NP) through an evidence mapping approach.

METHODS

We follow the Global Evidence Mapping (GEM) methodology. Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Library. The study type was restricted to SRs with or without meta-analysis. All literature published before January 23, 2021, were included. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). Data were extracted according to a defined population-intervention-comparison-outcome (PICO) framework from primary studies that included SRs. The same PICO was categorized into PICOs according to interventions (stimulation target, frequency, number of sessions (short: 1-5 sessions, medium: 5-10 sessions, and long: >10 sessions)) and comparison (sham rTMS or other targets). The evidence mapping was presented in tables and a bubble plot.

RESULTS

A total of 23 SRs were included. According to the AMSTAR-2, 20 SRs scored "very low" in terms of methodological quality, 2 SRs scored "low," and 1 SR scored "high." A total of 17 PICOs were extracted. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is the most studied of the non-motor cortex targets. PICOs of DLPFC, premotor cortex (PMC), frontal cortex, and secondary somatosensory cortex (S2) were mainly categorized with a "potentially better" conclusion. High-frequency (5-20 Hz) rTMS of non-M1 usually lead to "potentially better" conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

DLPFC, PMC, frontal cortex, and S2 seem to be promising new targets for rTMS treatment of certain NP. Evidence mapping is a useful and reliable methodology to identify and present the existing evidence gap that more research efforts are necessary in order to highlight the optimal stimulation protocols for non-M1 targets and standardize parameters to fill the evidence gaps of rTMS. Further investigation is advised to improve the methodological quality and the reporting process of SRs.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for neuropathic pain: a randomized multicentre sham-controlled trial

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been proposed to treat neuropathic pain but the quality of evidence remains low. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of neuronavigated rTMS to the motor cortex (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in neuropathic pain over 25 weeks. We did a randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at four outpatient clinics in France. Patients aged 18-75 years with peripheral neuropathic pain were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to M1 or DLPFC-rTMS and re-randomised in a 2:1 ratio to active or sham rTMS (10 Hz, 3000 pulses/session, 15 sessions over 22 weeks). Patients and investigators were blind to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the comparison between active M1-rTMS, active DLPCF-rTMS and sham-rTMS for the change over the course of 25 weeks (group by time interaction) in average pain intensity (from 0 no pain to 10 maximal pain) on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), using a mixed model repeated measures analysis in patients who received at least one rTMS session (modified ITT population). Secondary outcomes included other measures of pain intensity and relief, sensory and affective dimensions of pain, quality of pain, self reported pain intensity and fatigue (patients diary), patient and clinician global impression of change (PGIC, CGIC), quality of life, sleep, mood and catastrophizing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02010281. A total of 152 patients were randomised and 149 received treatment (49 for M1; 52 for DLPFC; 48 for sham). M1-rTMS reduced pain intensity versus sham-rTMS (estimate for group x session interaction: -0.048 ± 0.02; 95% CI: -0.09 to -0.01; p = 0.01). DLPFC-rTMS was not better than sham (estimate: -0.003 ± 0.01; 95% CI:-0.04 to 0.03, p = 0.9). M1-rRMS, but not DLPFC-rTMS, was also superior to sham-rTMS on pain relief, sensory dimenson of pain, self reported pain intensity and fatigue, PGIC and CGIC. There were no effect on quality of pain, mood, sleep and quality of life as all groups improved similarly over time. Headache was the most common side effect and occurred in 17 (34.7%), 23 (44.2%) and 13 (27.1%) patients from M1, DLPFC and sham groups respectively (p = 0.2). Our results support the clinical relevance of M1-rTMS, but not of DLPFC-rTMS, for peripheral neuropathic pain with an excellent safety profile.

Analgesic Effect of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain Patients: A Systematic Review

Introduction

The objective of this review is to systematically summarize the consensus on best practices for different NP conditions of the two most commonly utilized noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) technologies, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).

Methods

PubMed was searched according to the predetermined keywords and criteria. Only English language studies and studies published up to January 31, 2020 were taken into consideration. Meta-analyses, reviews, and systematic reviews were excluded first, and those related to animal studies or involving healthy volunteers were also excluded. Finally, 29 studies covering 826 NP patients were reviewed.

Results

The results from the 24 enrolled studies and 736 NP patients indicate that rTMS successfully relieved the pain symptoms of 715 (97.1%) NP patients. Also, five studies involving 95 NP patients (81.4%) also showed that tDCS successfully relieved NP. In the included studied, the M1 region plays a key role in the analgesic treatment of NIBS. The motor evoked potentials (MEPs), the 10–20 electroencephalography system (EEG 10/20 system), and neuro-navigation methods are used in clinical practice to locate therapeutic targets. Based on the results of the review, the stimulation parameters of rTMS that best induce an analgesic effect are a stimulation frequency of 10–20 Hz, a stimulation intensity of 80–120% of RMT, 1000–2000 pulses, and 5–10 sessions, and the most effective parameters of tDCS are a current intensity of 2 mA, a session duration of 20–30 min, and 5–10 sessions.

Conclusions

Our systematically reviewed the evidence for positive and negative responses to rTMS and tDCS for NP patient care and underscores the analgesic efficacy of NIBS in patients with NP. The treatment of NP should allow the design of optimal treatments for individual patients.

Repetitive non-invasive prefrontal stimulation reverses neuropathic pain via neural remodelling in mice

Chronic neuropathic pain presents a major challenge to pharmacological therapy and neurostimulation-based alternatives are gaining interest. Although invasive and non-invasive motor cortex stimulation has been the focus of several studies, very little is known about the potential of targeting the prefrontal cortex. This study was designed to elucidate the analgesic potential of prefrontal stimulation in a translational context and to uncover the neural underpinnings thereof. Here, we report that non-invasive, repetitive direct anodal current transcranial stimulation (tDCS) of the prefrontal cortex exerted analgesia in mice with neuropathic pain for longer than a week. When applied at chronic stages of neuropathic pain, prefrontal tDCS reversed established allodynia and suppressed aversion and anxiety-related behaviours. Activity mapping as well as in vivo electrophysiological analyses revealed that although the cortex responds to acute tDCS with major excitation, repetitive prefrontal tDCS brings about large-scale silencing of cortical activity. Different classes of different classes of GABAergic interneurons and classes of excitatory neurons differs dramatically between single, acute vs and repetitive tDCS. Repetitive prefrontal tDCS alters basal activity as well as responsivity of a discrete set of distant cortical and sub-cortical areas to tactile stimuli, namely the rostral anterior cingulate cortex, the insular cortex, the ventrolateral periaqueductal grey and the spinal dorsal horn. This study thus makes a strong case for harnessing prefrontal cortical modulation for non-invasive transcranial stimulation paradigms to achieve long-lasting pain relief in established neuropathic pain states and provides valuable insights gained on neural mechanistic underpinnings of prefrontal tDCS in neuropathic pain.

Nonpharmacological therapies for central poststroke pain: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Central poststroke pain (CPSP) is a neuropathic pain syndrome that can occur after a cerebrovascular accident. It has negative effects on mood, sleep, rehabilitation, and quality of life in stroke patients. This systematic review assessed the efficacy and safety of nonpharmacological therapies for treating CPSP.

METHODS

The Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for studies from inception to August 2020. Two authors worked independently and in duplicate to identify suitable studies.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were identified. Pain related to CPSP was ameliorated by precentral gyrus stimulation (P = .01), caloric vestibular stimulation (P = 0.004), transcranial direct current stimulation (P < .05), and bee venom acupuncture point injection (P = .009). Acupuncture (P = .72) and electroacupuncture therapies (P > .05) were as effective for thalamic pain as oral carbamazepine treatment. Motor cortex stimulation, but not deep brain stimulation (DBS), was effective for treating refractory CPSP, and appeared to be more effective than thalamic stimulation for controlling bulbar pain secondary to Wallenberg syndrome. However, DBS in the ventral striatum or anterior limb of the internal capsule improved depression (P = .020) and anxiety in patients with refractory CPSP. Some serious adverse events were reported in response to invasive electrical brain stimulation, but most of these effects recovered with treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonpharmacological therapies appear to be effective in CPSP, but the evidence is relatively weak. Invasive electrical brain stimulation can be accompanied by serious adverse events, but most patients recover from these effects.

Prevalence and Management Challenges in Central Post-Stroke Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Introduction

Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is defined as the neuropathic pain that arises either acutely or in the chronic phase of a cerebrovascular event and is a result of central lesions of the somatosensory tract. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish the prevalence of CPSP, to describe its characteristics, and to discuss the associated management challenges.

Methods

After a systematic Medline search, we identified 69 papers eligible to be included.

Results

The pooled prevalence of CPSP in patients with stroke at any location was 11% (95% CI 7–18%), which can increase to more than 50% in the subgroups of patients with medullary or thalamic strokes. CPSP onset coincides with stroke occurrence in 26% of patients (95% CI 18–35%); CPSP manifests within a month since symptom onset in 31% of patients (95% CI 22–42%), and occurs between the first month and the first year in 41% of patients (95% CI 33.9–49.0%). CPSP develops more than 12 months after stroke onset in 5% of patients (95% CI 3–8%).

Conclusions

Clinicians should look for any evidence of central neuropathic pain for at least 12 months after stroke. Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions can be used for the management of CPSP. Lamotrigine has the strongest evidence (Level II of evidence, derived from small randomized controlled trials) for being effective in the management of CPSP. Future research should focus on well-designed trials of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions aiming to relief CPSP, which is a very common but often neglected pain syndrome.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01388-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

New Developments in Non-invasive Brain Stimulation in Chronic Pain

Purpose of Review

The goal of this review is to present a summary of the recent literature of a non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) to alleviate pain in people with chronic pain syndromes. This article reviews the current evidence for the use of transcranial direct current (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to improve outcomes in chronic pain. Finally, we introduce the reader to novel stimulation methods that may improve therapeutic outcomes in chronic pain.

Recent Findings

While tDCS is approved for treatment of fibromyalgia in Canada and the European Union, no NIBS method is currently approved for chronic pain in the United States. Increasing sample sizes in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) seems the most efficient way to increase confidence in initial promising results. Trends at funding agencies reveal increased interest and support for NIBS such as recent Requests for Application from the National Institutes of Health. NIBS in conjunction with cognitive behavioral therapy and physical therapy may enhance outcomes in chronic pain. Novel stimulation methods, such as transcranial ultrasound stimulation, await rigorous study in chronic pain.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for neuropathic pain: Systematic review and French recommendations

Neuropathic pain remains a significant unmet medical need. Several recommendations have recently been proposed concerning pharmacotherapy, neurostimulation techniques and interventional management, but no comprehensive guideline encompassing all these treatments has yet been issued. We performed a systematic review of pharmacotherapy, neurostimulation, surgery, psychotherapies and other types of therapy for peripheral or central neuropathic pain, based on studies published in peer-reviewed journals before January 2018. The main inclusion criteria were chronic neuropathic pain for at least three months, a randomized controlled methodology, at least three weeks of follow-up, at least 10 patients per group, and a double-blind design for drug therapy. Based on the GRADE system, we provide weak-to-strong recommendations for use and proposal as a first-line treatment for SNRIs (duloxetine and venlafaxine), gabapentin and tricyclic antidepressants and, for topical lidocaine and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation specifically for peripheral neuropathic pain; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as a second-line treatment for pregabalin, tramadol, combination therapy (antidepressant combined with gabapentinoids), and for high-concentration capsaicin patches and botulinum toxin A specifically for peripheral neuropathic pain; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as a third-line treatment for high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex, spinal cord stimulation (failed back surgery syndrome and painful diabetic polyneuropathy) and strong opioids (in the absence of an alternative). Psychotherapy (cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness) is recommended as a second-line therapy, as an add-on to other therapies. An algorithm encompassing all the recommended treatments is proposed.

Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Pain Management: A Systematic Narrative Review

Recently, clinicians have been using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating various pain conditions. This systematic narrative review aimed to examine the use and efficacy of rTMS for controlling various pain conditions. A PubMed search was conducted for articles that were published until June 7, 2019 and used rTMS for pain alleviation. The key search phrase for identifying potentially relevant articles was (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation AND pain). The following inclusion criteria were applied for article selection: (1) patients with pain, (2) rTMS was applied for pain management, and (3) follow-up evaluations were performed after rTMS stimulation to assess the reduction in pain. Review articles were excluded. Overall, 1,030 potentially relevant articles were identified. After reading the titles and abstracts and assessing eligibility based on the full-text articles, 106 publications were finally included in our analysis. Overall, our findings suggested that rTMS is beneficial for treating neuropathic pain of various origins, such as central pain, pain from peripheral nerve disorders, fibromyalgia, and migraine. Although data on the use of rTMS for orofacial pain, including trigeminal neuralgia, phantom pain, low back pain, myofascial pain syndrome, pelvic pain, and complex regional pain syndrome, were promising, there was insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of rTMS for treating these conditions. Therefore, further studies are needed to validate the effects of rTMS on pain relief in these conditions. Overall, this review will help guide clinicians in making informed decisions regarding whether rTMS is an appropriate option for managing various pain conditions.

Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): An update (2014-2018)

A group of European experts reappraised the guidelines on the therapeutic efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) previously published in 2014 [Lefaucheur et al., Clin Neurophysiol 2014;125:2150-206]. These updated recommendations take into account all rTMS publications, including data prior to 2014, as well as currently reviewed literature until the end of 2018. Level A evidence (definite efficacy) was reached for: high-frequency (HF) rTMS of the primary motor cortex (M1) contralateral to the painful side for neuropathic pain; HF-rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) using a figure-of-8 or a H1-coil for depression; low-frequency (LF) rTMS of contralesional M1 for hand motor recovery in the post-acute stage of stroke. Level B evidence (probable efficacy) was reached for: HF-rTMS of the left M1 or DLPFC for improving quality of life or pain, respectively, in fibromyalgia; HF-rTMS of bilateral M1 regions or the left DLPFC for improving motor impairment or depression, respectively, in Parkinson's disease; HF-rTMS of ipsilesional M1 for promoting motor recovery at the post-acute stage of stroke; intermittent theta burst stimulation targeted to the leg motor cortex for lower limb spasticity in multiple sclerosis; HF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in posttraumatic stress disorder; LF-rTMS of the right inferior frontal gyrus in chronic post-stroke non-fluent aphasia; LF-rTMS of the right DLPFC in depression; and bihemispheric stimulation of the DLPFC combining right-sided LF-rTMS (or continuous theta burst stimulation) and left-sided HF-rTMS (or intermittent theta burst stimulation) in depression. Level A/B evidence is not reached concerning efficacy of rTMS in any other condition. The current recommendations are based on the differences reached in therapeutic efficacy of real vs. sham rTMS protocols, replicated in a sufficient number of independent studies. This does not mean that the benefit produced by rTMS inevitably reaches a level of clinical relevance.

Effects of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation on Clinical Pain Intensity and Experimental Pain Sensitivity Among Individuals with Central Post-Stroke Pain: A Systematic Review

Purpose

Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is a neuropathic disorder resulting in pain and disability. An emerging treatment for CPSP is non-invasive brain stimulation including direct current stimulation [tDCS] and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS]. This systematic review analyzes the efficacy and quality of non-invasive brain stimulation intervention studies for CPSP.

Methods

Studies were sought from three research databases published between 2007 and 2017. Studies were included if the sole intervention was non-invasive brain stimulation and the primary outcome either clinical or experimental pain intensity. Studies were qualitatively assessed for risk of bias.

Results

Of 1107 articles extracted, six met eligibility criteria. Five studies found a decrease in pain intensity (p<0.05) immediately and 3 weeks after rTMS or tDCS was delivered over the primary motor cortex. For experimental pain, one study found thermal pain thresholds improved for those receiving tDCS compared to sham (p<0.05), while another found normalization of the cold detection threshold only after rTMS (p<0.05). Qualitative assessment revealed only one study rated as "excellent/good" quality, while the other five were rated as "fair" or "poor".

Conclusion

Non-invasive brain stimulation may have a therapeutic effect on pain level for individuals with CPSP, as evidenced by significant decreases in clinical and experimental pain scores. However, despite the impact of CPSP and the promise of non-invasive brain stimulation, few rigorous studies have been performed in this area. Future studies should aim to standardize treatment parameters, measure both clinical and experimental pain, and include long-term follow-up.

Noninvasive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) in Chronic Refractory Pain: A Systematic Review

Efficacy and tolerance of pharmacological medications in chronic pain are limited. Therefore, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is regarded as a secure therapeutic option for pain relief, and it was proven to produce an analgesic effect. A wide variety of stimulation parameters can influence its long-lasting antalgic effect. Defining the best stimulation protocol can afford greater uniformity and consistency for considering rTMS as a promising effective tool. We aimed to systematically review and evaluate the current literature on transcranial magnetic stimulation for patients suffering from chronic pain, assess its efficacy, and estimate the best stimulation protocol. The Screened and tested electronic databases comprised PubMed, Ovid Medline, Cochrane database library, and Google scholar from the year 2000 till 2018. The keywords utilizing search terms "Transcranial magnetic stimulation", "chronic pain", "neuropathic pain" were used to study all possible randomized clinical trials about the impact of transcranial magnetic stimulation on long-lasting pain. All articles were judged for the possibility of prejudice using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for data extraction. Search engines produced seventy applicable results. Twelve randomized controlled clinical trials were included involving 350 patients with focal and generalized chronic pain. An existing proof showed a null response of low-frequency rTMS stimulation, rTMS delivered to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in chronic pain patients. However, a witnessed pain-killing response was documented when applying active high- frequency TMS on the motor cortex M1 area compared to sham. Pain relief was detected for a short time following the application of active high-frequency motor cortex stimulation in nine clinical trials, and the long-lasting analgesic effect was proved. No side effects were mentioned for the technique. Repetitive TMS can produce clinically meaningful relief from chronic pain, despite positive results, heterogeneity among all studies preclude firm conclusions regarding the optimal target stimulation site and parameters. Further studies are required to minimize bias, enhance performance, and define the best brain stimulation conditions and qualifications to maximize its potency.

Diffusion Tensor Tractography Studies of Central Post-stroke Pain Due to the Spinothalamic Tract Injury: A Mini-Review

Elucidation of the pathophysiological mechanism of central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is essential to the development of effective therapeutic modalities for CPSP. However, the pathophysiological mechanism of CPSP has not yet been clearly elucidated. The recent development of diffusion tensor tractography (DTT), derived from diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), has allowed visualization and estimation of the spinothalamic tract (STT), which has been considered the most plausible neural tract responsible for the pathogenesis of CPSP. In this mini-review, six DTT studies in which CPSP due to STT injury in stroke patients was demonstrated are reviewed. The information provided in the reviewed studies suggests that DTT is useful in the elucidation of the pathophysiological mechanism associated with CPSP. We believe that the reviewed studies will facilitate neurorehabilitation of stroke patients with CPSP. However, DTT studies of CPSP are still in the beginning stage because the total number (six studies) of the reviewed studies is very low and half were case reports. Therefore, further studies involving large numbers of subjects are warranted.

Latin American and Caribbean consensus on noninvasive central nervous system neuromodulation for chronic pain management (LAC2-NIN-CP)

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Introduction:

Chronic pain (CP) is highly prevalent and generally undertreated health condition. Noninvasive brain stimulation may contribute to decrease pain intensity and influence other aspects related to CP.

Objective:

To provide consensus-based recommendations for the use of noninvasive brain stimulation in clinical practice.

Methods:

Systematic review of the literature searching for randomized clinical trials followed by consensus panel. Recommendations also involved a cost-estimation study.

Results:

The systematic review wielded 24 transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and 22 repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) studies. The following recommendations were provided: (1) Level A for anodal tDCS over the primary motor cortex (M1) in fibromyalgia, and level B for peripheral neuropathic pain, abdominal pain, and migraine; bifrontal (F3/F4) tDCS and M1 high-definition (HD)-tDCS for fibromyalgia; Oz/Cz tDCS for migraine and for secondary benefits such as improvement in quality of life, decrease in anxiety, and increase in pressure pain threshold; (2) level A recommendation for high-frequency (HF) rTMS over M1 for fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, and level B for myofascial or musculoskeletal pain, complex regional pain syndrome, and migraine; (3) level A recommendation against the use of anodal M1 tDCS for low back pain; and (4) level B recommendation against the use of HF rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in the control of pain.

Conclusion:

Transcranial DCS and rTMS are recommended techniques to be used in the control of CP conditions, with low to moderate analgesic effects, and no severe adverse events. These recommendations are based on a systematic review of the literature and a consensus made by experts in the field. Readers should use it as part of the resources available to decision-making.

Clinical study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex for thalamic pain

Thalamic pain is a severe pain that is often unresponsive to medical therapy. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) entirely non-invasively modulates neuronal plasticity to produce therapeutic benefit. Since the rTMS stimulation parameters varied, it is difficult to determine which specific parameters are best for clinical use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the analgesic lasting effect of 10-Hz rTMS over the motor cortex (M1) for 10 consecutive days to treat thalamic pain.Patients were treated with daily 10-Hz rTMS sessions for 1000 pulses applied over the M1 for 10 consecutive days. Pain severity and mood were assessed at baseline, immediately after, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks after rTMS. Pain severity was measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the percentage of pain relief on VAS score was calculated between baseline and final examination. Mood was monitored using the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) and Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD).Seven patients with thalamic pain were enrolled. VAS score was significantly decreased after rTMS. Mean VAS scores were 7 at baseline and decreased to 5.6 at 2 weeks after rTMS and then decreased to 3.9 at 8 weeks after rTMS. The analgesic effect of rTMS can last up to 8 weeks. The percentage of pain relief ranges from 25.0% to 66.7% at the 8th week. Four patients (3 moderate pain and 1 severe pain) achieved satisfactory relief (pain relief ≥40-69%).Although this was an open-label study without a control group, our findings show that 10 Hz rTMS over the M1 for 10 consecutive days can produce satisfactory or partial antalgic effect on patients with thalamic pain.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.